Printable View
ok, so in my search for a new job, I'm finding that almost everyone is asking for someone that knows C++. That's fine, problem is, I DON'T KNOW ANY.
I know loads of C and have even taken 2 classes strictly on it. I just never had the need to dive into C++. So i guess my main question is how different are they?
And can someone give me a sample program (somewhat complex) so that I can at least start looking at some code?
C++ is object-oriented programming. that is the main difference. once you get the hang of OOP, then you should be fine. as for code, you could just click on a few threads and look through the code. but do remember, things do need debugging.
edit: Also, classes are used in C++ to create new classes (lack of a better word). ex.
that would be an example of creating an object of a Class that is not a built in type.Code:Class object;
object.doSomething();
Structs in C++ are used similarly as classes, and are different than those used in C. Structs differ with classes only in that structs default to public and classes default to private.
I hope this helps some.
It can be downloaded from the net in PDF or HTML form. Its real good.. and must help you to migrate smoothly from C to C++
Book "Thinking In C++" by Bruce Eckel
thanks for the advice.
Alpha, so with classes... that's similar to Java classes? And i know I need to brush up on my OOP. I've been a VB programmer for the past year or so for my company and used little C, but have plenty of C knowledge from my undergrad work which I'm finishing up this spring.
I don't know if c++ are similar to java classes, i haven't learned java yet. I also recommend Bruce Eckel's book.
Hi,
F.Y.I Java and C++ classes are quite similar with some exceptions:
- functions don't need to be prototyped in java
- java has 'automatic garbage collection', this means when we create a new object we don't need to call a ~destructor to free the memory occupied by the object, it is done automatically by the compiler. It does offer a finalize keyword which can be used like a destructor, but thats another ball game
- everything written in java must be encapsulated within {} preceeded by the name of the class
e.g:
class myclass
{
public static void main (String args[])
{
}
void myfunction(void)
{
}
}//end class myclass
Barry
There are 2 versions of that book. The first one that is "out of print" and then Introduction to Standard C++ 2nd Edition. Which one?
excellent :) This might not be as hard of a switch as I thought.Quote:
Originally posted by Barry
Hi,
F.Y.I Java and C++ classes are quite similar with some exceptions:
.........
Barry
Ober, it is entirely possible(and frequent) for people to code in C++ without using OOP. If those employers just want you to know <iostream> and little stuff like that, you could get all of that down in a day or two. However, OOP is a whole different way of thinking about a problem. Fortunately, a good number of C++ books are written specifically for people who already know C. I also recomend Bruce Eckel's Thinking in C++. He assumes that the reader already knows some C or C++, but not OOP. I wish you luck learning OOP and with your job search:)
ahhh!! Didn't anyone see my post? I said there were 2 versions of that book! Can you please tell me which one you all read?
but thanks for the advice. I've done some OOP with Java and I have a decent understanding of it... I just don't know some of the syntax of C++ and I'd like to get a better grasp of C++ OOP.
this site right here explains C++ basics pretty well. Also, you can try www.cplusplus.com
I've only read one programming book, and it was just an old C game programming book, came out b4 C++ got popular. The only thing I really learned from it was how to optimise stuff. I learned everything else by myself, with a little help of the internet.
Just as they said, you don't need OOP to use C++. In fact, I used C++ for 6 months b4 I even made my first class.
> Just as they said, you don't need OOP to use C++.
What's the point of using C++ if you're not doing OOP? Why not just use C in that case?
That's what I was thinking. I thought the whole purpose of C++ was to use OOP.
So did I; but there's many too many people out there who claim they know C++ by including iostream in their C program.Quote:
Originally posted by ober5861
That's what I was thinking. I thought the whole purpose of C++ was to use OOP.
After you've got the basics down... I seriously suggest you pick up "Effective C++" by Scott Meyers... it's the most amazing book i've read to date. There's also "More effective C++" and "Effective STL"
>>Book "Thinking In C++" by Bruce Eckel
Can someone answer this question please?! :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by ober5861
There are 2 versions of that book. The first one that is "out of print" and then Introduction to Standard C++ 2nd Edition. Which one?
As for the two versions, you could read both. The first edition covers quite a few topics, while the second goes into more depth (i think, haven't really read either yet, some of the first one) and the second also discusses a few more topics not covered in the first edition. There is a brief explanation in the beginning of each book explaining what is covered in each book and what is covered in the other edition.
I think I'm just going to get the 2nd edition and go with that. Unless someone has a reason why I shouldn't?! :confused:
>What's the point of using C++ if you're not doing OOP? Why not just use C in that case?<
Stronger type checking; extended standard library; more compiler support for generics; to name a few reasons why you might.
Not to mention templating!
Calm down there, Ober. Here's a link for ya. http://www.codecuts.com/mainpage.asp?WebPageID=315Quote:
Originally posted by ober5861
I think I'm just going to get the 2nd edition and go with that. Unless someone has a reason why I shouldn't?! :confused:
That'll take you straight to where you can download the free pdfs for volumes one and two. Start with volume one. Volume one begins by explaining OOP. After you've read volume one, read volume two.
C++ is not a "true" OOP language like Smalltalk, Eiffel, Modula-3 or even Java. It is a "hybrid" language. I.e. it is a procedural language with built in OO support.Quote:
>What's the point of using C++ if you're not doing OOP? Why not just use C in that case?<
Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to write procedural style applications in C++. As others have already mentioned you have stronger type checking, templates and the STL which makes C++ a great programming tool whether or not your exploiting the OO aspects of the language.
Basically C++ encompases two different programming paradigms - both are legitimate within the defines of the C++ language.
Probably the greatest pitfalls for an ex C programmer comming to terms with the OO aspects of C++ is inheritance and polymorphism. They are not always as intuitive as one would hope. :)